That's certainly been my experience with the S5 WUs so far. Previously my Macs would get anything between 35% and 250% of what they claimed, according to the 'luck of the draw' in the quorum, but now they're perfectly consistent.
Well, but you and the fools minusing my post don't get it, that here the credit is pre-granted by the server and you get, what the server decided. Rosetta uses the credit claimed by the client based on the benchmark to grant the credit. If you don't know or understand the difference, then never mind... ;)
The difference is that you somehow think it's unfair to use a slow box and get lower credits even though the faster box did more actual calculations.
I'm still astounded that people get so worked up over some fictitous point system that only a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people in this world would ever know or give two flips about.
The difference is that you somehow think it's unfair to use a slow box and get lower credits even though the faster box did more actual calculations.
As i already said, you (too) don't get it, so i stop wasting time to try to explain this to people who simply don't (want to) understand...
Let me try this again... :-)
- No information from the BOINC client, neither runtime nor benchmark nor FLOPs count, is used for granting credit. It's totally based on information on the server side, i.e. on the FLOPs estimate the WU generator writes into the database (based on the number of templates it writes into a Workunit).
- The FLOPs estimation is passed to the App, so that with recent enough BOINC clients it will also claim the right amount of credit to make this transparent to the users, i.e. that they can see which credit they will be granted when the result is reported.
The latter doesn't work with older (4.xx) or some non-official BOINC clients, but that doesn't matter for the granted credit.
This applies to SETI and now also to Einstein, correct - i never queried that!
But at Rosetta you are the only one to crunch the WU (so no quorum!) and you yourself alone determine in the settings how long the WU will run on your computer (up to 4 days! - independend of the actual speed!). It is very different at Rosetta, cause the cruncher is able to reuse already crunched results from the ongoing run to make more precise predictions on the particular protein. So it is unpredictable on the server side how long and how intense the actual crunching takes place. So it is only fair, to take the benchmark as the actual base for granted credits. That was my point - is it really that difficult to understand?
That was my point - is it really that difficult to understand?
No need to minus me for it... I was posting it for the crowds on Einstein again, since it's still a thing that some people cannot follow in the changes between S4 and S5.
I can't prove it, but believe me, i never use the + or - buttons for anything. Indeed i now will give you a plus just to prove it! ;)
Well we have had a 'phantom' minuser or two about recently! :-)
I can't for the life of me deduce what was their problem though ( the posts didn't seem contentious to me ).
Ah well ....
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
It seems very strange to me that people can't understand this credit system. It couldn't more simple.
- On the server side it is determined that work unit "X" is going to be granted "Y" credits if it is accurately crunched.
- Slower machines take longer to chew through the unit but get the same credits as faster machines.
- For goodness sake, it's the same as a granola bar. The factory determines the number of calories you'll intake from the consumption of the bar but some people chew and swallow faster than others.
What in the world could be more simple?? How could there possibly be confusion on this matter?
Jim
Those who don’t build must burn. It’s as old as history and juvenile delinquents.
Ray Bradbury - Fahrenheit 451
What in the world could be more simple?? How could there possibly be confusion on this matter?
Jim
This system is very simple and easy to understand, just some others don't like it.
Could be made simpler, just count the number of WU's like they did in SETI Classic. Would you ever hear a lot of complaints then, and some say why did he get those 9 short units when I got none of them. With the new system you get about the same per Hr. with the short or long units, just that some liked getting more credit than they requested, and feel cheated when they don't.
People who are here just for the credits will leave for other programs. The ones here for the science will stay. Some like 2 or 3 programs, they just have to decide which is more important to them and adjust there time accordingley.
RE: RE: That's certainly
)
The difference is that you somehow think it's unfair to use a slow box and get lower credits even though the faster box did more actual calculations.
I'm still astounded that people get so worked up over some fictitous point system that only a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people in this world would ever know or give two flips about.
RE: Well, but you and the
)
So, whats the problem about it?
RE: The difference is that
)
As i already said, you (too) don't get it, so i stop wasting time to try to explain this to people who simply don't (want to) understand...
Aloha, Uli
RE: RE: The difference is
)
Let me try this again... :-)
- No information from the BOINC client, neither runtime nor benchmark nor FLOPs count, is used for granting credit. It's totally based on information on the server side, i.e. on the FLOPs estimate the WU generator writes into the database (based on the number of templates it writes into a Workunit).
- The FLOPs estimation is passed to the App, so that with recent enough BOINC clients it will also claim the right amount of credit to make this transparent to the users, i.e. that they can see which credit they will be granted when the result is reported.
The latter doesn't work with older (4.xx) or some non-official BOINC clients, but that doesn't matter for the granted credit.
RE: Let me try this
)
This applies to SETI and now also to Einstein, correct - i never queried that!
But at Rosetta you are the only one to crunch the WU (so no quorum!) and you yourself alone determine in the settings how long the WU will run on your computer (up to 4 days! - independend of the actual speed!). It is very different at Rosetta, cause the cruncher is able to reuse already crunched results from the ongoing run to make more precise predictions on the particular protein. So it is unpredictable on the server side how long and how intense the actual crunching takes place. So it is only fair, to take the benchmark as the actual base for granted credits. That was my point - is it really that difficult to understand?
Aloha, Uli
RE: That was my point - is
)
No need to minus me for it... I was posting it for the crowds on Einstein again, since it's still a thing that some people cannot follow in the changes between S4 and S5.
(I was trying to help you, but hey... ;))
RE: No need to minus me for
)
I can't prove it, but believe me, i never use the + or - buttons for anything. Indeed i now will give you a plus just to prove it! ;)
Aloha, Uli
RE: I can't prove it, but
)
Well we have had a 'phantom' minuser or two about recently! :-)
I can't for the life of me deduce what was their problem though ( the posts didn't seem contentious to me ).
Ah well ....
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
It seems very strange to me
)
It seems very strange to me that people can't understand this credit system. It couldn't more simple.
- On the server side it is determined that work unit "X" is going to be granted "Y" credits if it is accurately crunched.
- Slower machines take longer to chew through the unit but get the same credits as faster machines.
- For goodness sake, it's the same as a granola bar. The factory determines the number of calories you'll intake from the consumption of the bar but some people chew and swallow faster than others.
What in the world could be more simple?? How could there possibly be confusion on this matter?
Jim
Those who don’t build must burn. It’s as old as history and juvenile delinquents.
Ray Bradbury - Fahrenheit 451
RE: What in the world could
)
This system is very simple and easy to understand, just some others don't like it.
Could be made simpler, just count the number of WU's like they did in SETI Classic. Would you ever hear a lot of complaints then, and some say why did he get those 9 short units when I got none of them. With the new system you get about the same per Hr. with the short or long units, just that some liked getting more credit than they requested, and feel cheated when they don't.
People who are here just for the credits will leave for other programs. The ones here for the science will stay. Some like 2 or 3 programs, they just have to decide which is more important to them and adjust there time accordingley.
Try the Pizza@Home project, good crunching.